Comments on: Twitter Isn’t a Shopping Mall for First Amendment Purposes (Duh)–Johnson v. Twitter https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/06/twitter-isnt-a-shopping-mall-for-first-amendment-purposes-duh-johnson-v-twitter.htm Thu, 13 Aug 2020 20:18:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: The Dude https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/06/twitter-isnt-a-shopping-mall-for-first-amendment-purposes-duh-johnson-v-twitter.htm#comment-2700 Thu, 13 Aug 2020 20:18:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=18881#comment-2700 what a lame article. the leftist scum are now in favor of private property and against censorship?

the Pruneyard case will be cited again and Twitter will lose.

]]> By: Average Joe https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/06/twitter-isnt-a-shopping-mall-for-first-amendment-purposes-duh-johnson-v-twitter.htm#comment-2121 Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:30:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=18881#comment-2121 It seems to me that protestors physically present at a mall pose much more of a threat than Twitterers who can be easily blocked by those who don’t want to read their tweets.

]]> By: Jason Farnon https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/06/twitter-isnt-a-shopping-mall-for-first-amendment-purposes-duh-johnson-v-twitter.htm#comment-2120 Fri, 15 Jun 2018 23:36:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=18881#comment-2120 “interfering with someone else’s right to censor” is a pretty tortured use of “censorious”. also the quote from the opinion doesn’t seem to shut the door on the shopping mall comparison, merely distinguishing the case based on the level of harassment of the plaintiff’s speech, rather than twitter’s property rights, say.

]]>